87-year-old in row over £2m family home evicted while he’s at the shops
A PENSIONER was evicted from his home of 40 years by his nephew.
Andrew Constandas, 87, returned from a shopping trip to find the locks changed and his possessions dumped in bin bags.
The £2.2million property belongs to his sister and her son, Michael Lysandrou, claims he has no right to stay there.
Mr Constandas insists that even though he is not on the deeds he should be treated as the joint owner because he put up half the £1,200 purchase price in 1959.
Mr Lysandrou, 60, says his uncle was never more than a ‘non-paying lodger’ who his mother Andriana took in out of pity.
The Central London County Court dismissed Mr Constandas’s claim for a stake in the house in 2016. But Sarah Steinhardt, for Mr Constandas, told the Court of Appeal yesterday that this ruling was wrong.
She said Mr Constandas moved into the property in Hampstead, north[west London, with his sisnephew ter, her husband and their son – Mr Lysandrou – in 1973, following the breakdown of his marriage.
The retired engineer lived there, rent-free, until July 2015 when relations deteriorated between him and his sister’s family, the court heard. Miss Steinhardt said he was ‘summarily evicted’ and had to throw himself on the mercy of the council homelessness department. At that point his sister was suffering from dementia and her son was running her affairs.
Mr Constandas secured an emergency injunction – forcing his to allow him to continue living in the property – while also launching the claim for half ownership.
Describing his eviction, he said: ‘I had no idea where to go or how to access accommodation. My bank cards and other personal items were inside the house.
‘My family refused me access to collect anything until I came back with a police escort.’
Miss Steinhardt claimed her client’s sister needed his help to buy the house because she was a factory sewing machinist at the time on a modest wage.
But Christopher Jacobs, for Mr Lysandrou and his parents, said Mr Constandas ‘made no contribution toward the purchase price and had only ever occupied the property as a non-paying lodger’.
Summing up the case, Lord Justice David Kitchin said: ‘It resolves down to one simple fact – did he or did he not pay the sum of money toward the purchase price?’
At the end of the day-long hearing he and Mrs Justice Vivien Rose reserved their ruling on the case until a later date.